Pros of ws

• More robust and feature-rich, suitable for complex Node.js applications
• Better performance and scalability for high-traffic scenarios
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of ws

• Not designed for embedded systems or microcontrollers
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing resource usage
• Steeper learning curve for beginners compared to simpler libraries

Code Comparison

ws:

const WebSocket = require('ws');
const wss = new WebSocket.Server({ port: 8080 });

wss.on('connection', function connection(ws) {
  ws.on('message', function incoming(message) {
    console.log('received: %s', message);
  });
});

arduinoWebSockets:

#include <WebSocketsServer.h>

WebSocketsServer webSocket = WebSocketsServer(81);

void webSocketEvent(uint8_t num, WStype_t type, uint8_t * payload, size_t length) {
  // Handle WebSocket events
}

void setup() {
  webSocket.begin();
  webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
}

Summary

ws is a powerful WebSocket library for Node.js applications, offering extensive features and scalability. arduinoWebSockets is tailored for embedded systems and microcontrollers, providing a simpler implementation for resource-constrained environments. Choose based on your project requirements and target platform.

Pros of gorilla/websocket

• Written in Go, offering better performance and concurrency support
• More comprehensive WebSocket protocol implementation
• Wider adoption and community support in the Go ecosystem

Cons of gorilla/websocket

• Not suitable for Arduino or embedded systems
• Requires more system resources compared to arduinoWebSockets
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Go

Code Comparison

arduinoWebSockets:

#include <WebSocketsClient.h>

WebSocketsClient webSocket;
webSocket.begin("example.com", 80, "/ws");
webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
webSocket.setReconnectInterval(5000);

gorilla/websocket:

import "github.com/gorilla/websocket"

var upgrader = websocket.Upgrader{}
conn, err := upgrader.Upgrade(w, r, nil)
if err != nil {
    log.Print("upgrade failed: ", err)
    return
}

Summary

arduinoWebSockets is tailored for Arduino and embedded systems, offering a lightweight solution for WebSocket communication. It's ideal for IoT projects and resource-constrained environments.

gorilla/websocket, on the other hand, is a robust Go library designed for server-side applications. It provides a more complete WebSocket implementation and is better suited for scalable web applications and services running on more powerful hardware.

The choice between these libraries depends on the target platform, available resources, and specific project requirements.

Pros of uWebSockets

• Higher performance and scalability, capable of handling millions of connections
• More feature-rich, supporting advanced WebSocket features and protocols
• Better suited for large-scale, high-performance applications

Cons of uWebSockets

• More complex to set up and use, especially for beginners
• Not specifically designed for Arduino or embedded systems
• Requires more system resources, which may not be suitable for constrained devices

Code Comparison

uWebSockets:

uWS::Hub h;
h.onMessage([](uWS::WebSocket<uWS::SERVER> *ws, char *message, size_t length, uWS::OpCode opCode) {
    ws->send(message, length, opCode);
});
h.listen(3000);
h.run();

arduinoWebSockets:

WebSocketsServer webSocket = WebSocketsServer(81);
webSocket.begin();
webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
webSocket.loop();

Summary

uWebSockets is a high-performance WebSocket library designed for scalability and advanced features, making it suitable for large-scale applications. However, it may be overkill for simple Arduino projects. arduinoWebSockets, on the other hand, is specifically tailored for Arduino and embedded systems, offering easier setup and lower resource requirements, but with potentially lower performance for high-load scenarios.

Pros of Socket.IO

• Broader platform support, including web browsers and various server-side environments
• Built-in features like automatic reconnection and room-based broadcasting
• Extensive documentation and large community support

Cons of Socket.IO

• Heavier library size, which may not be suitable for resource-constrained devices
• More complex setup and configuration compared to simpler WebSocket implementations
• Potential overhead due to additional features that may not be necessary for all use cases

Code Comparison

Socket.IO (client-side):

const socket = io('http://localhost:3000');
socket.on('connect', () => {
  console.log('Connected to server');
  socket.emit('message', 'Hello, server!');
});

arduinoWebSockets (Arduino):

WebSocketsClient webSocket;
webSocket.begin("192.168.1.1", 81, "/");
webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
webSocket.setReconnectInterval(5000);

Key Differences

• Socket.IO provides a higher-level abstraction with additional features, while arduinoWebSockets focuses on a lightweight WebSocket implementation for Arduino and ESP8266/ESP32 devices.
• Socket.IO offers cross-platform compatibility, whereas arduinoWebSockets is specifically designed for embedded systems.
• arduinoWebSockets is more suitable for projects with limited resources, while Socket.IO excels in complex, feature-rich applications.

Pros of websocketpp

• More comprehensive and feature-rich WebSocket implementation
• Supports both client and server-side WebSocket functionality
• Better suited for desktop and server applications

Cons of websocketpp

• Larger codebase and higher resource requirements
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Not optimized for embedded systems or Arduino platforms

Code Comparison

arduinoWebSockets:

#include <WebSocketsClient.h>

WebSocketsClient webSocket;
webSocket.begin("example.com", 80, "/");
webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
webSocket.loop();

websocketpp:

#include <websocketpp/config/asio_no_tls_client.hpp>
#include <websocketpp/client.hpp>

typedef websocketpp::client<websocketpp::config::asio_client> client;
client c;
c.init_asio();
c.connect("ws://example.com:80/");
c.run();

Summary

arduinoWebSockets is designed specifically for Arduino and embedded systems, offering a simpler API and smaller footprint. It's ideal for IoT projects and resource-constrained environments.

websocketpp is a more robust and versatile library, suitable for a wide range of applications, including desktop and server-side development. It provides more features and flexibility but requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve.

Choose arduinoWebSockets for Arduino and lightweight embedded projects, and websocketpp for more complex, full-featured applications on desktop or server platforms.

Pros of awesome-websockets

• Comprehensive list of WebSocket resources and libraries for various languages and platforms
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Serves as a valuable reference for developers seeking WebSocket solutions

Cons of awesome-websockets

• Not an actual WebSocket implementation, just a curated list
• Requires additional research to determine the best tool for specific use cases
• May include outdated or deprecated libraries if not actively maintained

Code comparison

Not applicable, as awesome-websockets is a curated list and doesn't contain actual implementation code.

arduinoWebSockets, on the other hand, provides a WebSocket client and server implementation for Arduino. Here's a simple example of creating a WebSocket client:

#include <WebSocketsClient.h>

WebSocketsClient webSocket;

void setup() {
  webSocket.begin("example.com", 80, "/");
  webSocket.onEvent(webSocketEvent);
}

While awesome-websockets offers a wide range of WebSocket resources, arduinoWebSockets provides a specific implementation for Arduino devices. The choice between them depends on whether you need a reference for various WebSocket tools or a concrete implementation for Arduino projects.